A Period Is Questioned in the Declaration of Independence
Posted by TeresaW 9 years, 1 month ago to Government
"The period creates the impression that the list of self-evident truths ends with the right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” she says. But as intended by Thomas Jefferson, she argues, what comes next is just as important: the essential role of governments — “instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed” — in securing those rights.
I have, also, forwarded the link to the National Center for Constitutional Studies, which has carried the error over to their pocket sized publication of the Constitution, of which I have been handing out copies for years.
I have, also, forwarded the link to the National Center for Constitutional Studies, which has carried the error over to their pocket sized publication of the Constitution, of which I have been handing out copies for years.
Grammatical: If the period was not intended how come the T in That, which would be the first word after the missing period, is capitalized?
In addition, even if the period was not there it would not change the meaning of the sentence in the way claimed by the professor either grammatically or for the reasons discussed below.
Historical: It is well known that Jefferson was referring to Natural Rights and government is not a right in this system, it is a servant, which is consistent with the rest of the sentence.
In addition, the Founders were trying to justify that they had a right to revolt, based on reason. Only Locke had provided an argument based in reason for the right to remove a government. The professor's interpretation would defeat the very argument the Founders were trying to make, raising government as an equal of people, not their servant.
Philosophical: Jefferson considered Locke and Newton to be the two most important thinkers ever. He would not have written the Declaration of Independence in a way that was inconsistent with Locke. In fact, his original draft said Property not "pursuit of happiness" which would have been an exact copy of Locke's language.
If a freshman in college made such a poor argument in a paper, they would get and receive an F. This lady is supposed to have a PhD and has worked at Harvard and Princeton. She should be immediately fired.
The declaration is ignored by government in every pertient way. This is just a researcher looking for her 15 minutes, imo.
If she wants to get into the meat of the issue then she should be concentrating on:
"whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it"
That establishes the priority of the People over the government and its far past time to do something substantial to prosecute all those who place themselves above the sovereign people.
“….Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness, [coma] - That to secure these rights Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, [coma] -
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of those ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. [period] …
One thorough, complete thought. Rather than ‘…Happiness. (period)’
… then there may be more acute, widespread awareness and concern of the government’s current (and historical) infractions. Maybe not. But I do find it a significant issue.